THE CONCEPT OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION

It is popular belief that the concept of a written constitution
was invented in our modern era.

When the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution was drafted
reference was made to the Swiss and the American constitutions. (Ref: Quick and
Garran, Annotated Constitution)

A nation's constitution, apart from setting in place the style
of government, it sets in place rules designed to limit and control government.

If Government seems to be beyond control, that is, it ignores
the will of the People, then the constitution is inadequate.

Australia is in a situation where government repeatedly ignores
the clearly demonstrated will of the people.

MEDIA DECEPTION

It is important at this point to make a distinction between the
agenda of the media and the will of the people. Rarely if ever are they the
same, especially now that money rather than principle drives the media.

The will of the electorate is not expressed in the popular
media, as government would have us believe.

The implementation of a GST is one recent example, where the
party now in power, which campaigned on the implementation of a GST, received
about 43% against the opposition's 48%.

These percentages are arrived at after disenfranchising 20% of
the Australian electorate, by manipulation of the Electoral Act, and robbing the
20% of their choice,
which was for neither of the major parties, and certainly
against the GST. The best result the GST proposal could be seen to have received
was 30% support, all of this 30% was from loyal party supporters, who themselves
opposed the GST, in about the same percentages as the remainder of the
population, reducing the real result to about 85% against the GST. But the
government claim a mandate.

Turning this massive electorate refusal into a mandate for a GST
is an indication of not only what is possible under our existing constitution,
but what is actually happening. Such events are rather commonplace, irrespective
of which major party is in power. All such occurrences are an absolute and
blatant denial of democracy.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Some constitutions include, or have attached, what is called a
Bill of Rights, a list of the Peoples' rights.

The system we inherited guarantees liberty and the delivery of
justice via a system of limited government - as opposed to limiting the people
- via a Bill of Rights. The system we inherited is a far better system than any
other so far developed, including a Bill of Rights system such as America has.

One worldwide problem with the protection and delivery of
Peoples' rights is that the few in power run roughshod over the rules under
which they have been granted authority to govern. In Australia's case government
simply ignore the constitution when it suits them, making democracy only a word
without meaning.

What is missing from our Constitution is a totally reliable
method of enforcing it. An easily accessible, responsible, prompt method, where
the people have ready access to the machinery required to apply and enforce the
constitutional rules on government.

Our understanding is that in democratic nations the People are
required to give their approval to the nation's constitution. As Australia
claims to be a democratic nation it must meet this universally accepted
standard. Australia currently fails in any test on the delivery of democracy

REPUBLIC - DEMOCRACY

At this point we should give consideration to the word
"republic". The dictionary describes republic as --- "Where the
supreme power is vested in the people - OR - its elected representatives"

This description clearly sets out that there are two types of
republic ---

1.

One where the people are the supreme power. Let us call this
"type one", and

2.

The other where the parliament is the supreme power,
"type two".

Type two, where the Parliament is the supreme power, this
is not what the People believe to be democracy.

Unfortunately the word democracy also has the same double
meaning in the dictionary where "democracy" is explained in
exactly
the same words the word "republic" is described, ie. "Where the
supreme power is vested in the people - OR - it's elected representatives"

It seems inconceivable that there are two confusing
interpretations, in reality
opposing meanings, for these two extremely important words.

One may say that the second option is a "delegated supreme
power", but this does not alter the fact that the supreme power has in fact
changed hands and gone from one to the other of two historical enemies - the
people v government.

The fact that the people and government are enemies is not the
intention behind the concept of government; if government observed the rules,
neither would it be the reality. Government's sole job is to ensure and uphold
the liberties and justice of the people, not the reverse as seems to be the
case.

The dictionary's description of the words, republic and
democracy are a dictator's
dream, they allow a dictator to hold out that a
democracy and a republic exists when the opposite is reality.

It is arguable that "type two" in both the republic
and democracy models, where "delegated" supreme power is the system of
government, that there is little to no difference between the power delegated to
a monarch, who as legend has it, exercises the power of the people and a
president with the same delegated supreme power. In both cases it depends on the
rules in place to control either the monarch or a president and the peoples
ability to enforce the rules. So it is the rules that we cannot survive without.

CONSTITUTION - RULES

In the case of a British monarchs, they are restrained by the
Laws of England, Common Law, and the British Constitution. In the case of a
president they too are restrained by the constitution of the particular
republic. . . It is the rules that we must rely on to control people in all
systems as opposed to perceived good intention that may or may not exist.

In Australia's case, the rules are to be found in the Act to
Constitute Australia and the supporting documents and the Laws of England. The
means of restraining a president and a monarch are the same, a set of rules
under which the People agree to be governed.
If there is no general agreement
then anarchy ensues.

The importance of all this illustrates the importance of the
rules, the Constitution. Good government will flow when the "rules that
rule the rulers" are such that they guarantee good government. The most
important element of such a set of rules is the People's
ability to enforce
them.

To argue that the monarchy is better than a republic is
therefore a red herring. If government is not delivering good government then we
must look to the rules, not to who the figurehead is or the position held.

If the people who compile dictionaries
are confused and allocate
opposite meanings to two of the most important words in our language, it is
little wonder that the People are confused, and even less wonder that the
politicians use the double meaning to further their own agenda, a use they are
most expert at.

Australian government claims to be both a democracy and the
supreme power - dictionaries say this is ok, - when in reality this is not
possible. We must find words that distinguish between "type one" and
"type two" democratic republics and democratic monarchies.

The current republic proposal is designed to enshrine an all but
totally unlimited government system with supreme power over Australia vested in
the elected representatives --- the type of republic we don't need, and don't want
at any price.

THE WAY AHEAD

The republic we need, seeing that the monarchical system has
placed itself in a position that is not retrievable, is the "type one"
republic "Where the supreme power is vested in the people". This is
the undeniable concept of the English Monarchy, given the events of Magna Carta
and the other documents making up the British Constitution. But it has failed to
work this way.

The English people won self-government as a fundamental
principle. Unfortunately, rarely have they had it delivered --- this is also the
case in Australia. The reason it has rarely been delivered, is that the people
never in fact wrote the rules, they relied on an elite to do it for them. As a
result they have never had built into the rules a reliable means of enforcing
the rules.

Not a modern concept

Popular belief is that a written constitution, that is, a
document or documents written as a constitution, is a modern concept --- this is
wrong.

The concept of a constitution was invented with Magna Carta back
in 1215 when Magna Carta was imposed on the ruler (government) of the day: Magna
Carta was the first written constitution.

The process of imposing Magna Carta on the ruler established
some very important and fundamental principles, principles that form the basis
of modern "type one" democracies; of which there are not many.
Australia is not one, nor is America. Switzerland and a few smaller countries
may be entitled to be called type one democracies.

Britain would be entitled to be called a type one democracy if
the Monarch was willing and able and actually did carry out the intent of the
Coronation Oath, but unfortunately this has not been our experience.

ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES

The fundamental principles established by Magna Carta are not
limited to only the principles that are written down in the document, such as
-"a man may not have taken from him, his life, liberty or property, except
under the law of the land on the judgement of his peers", and - "no
man shall be deprived of the means by which he earns a living by any act
whatsoever" (authors translation).

The "Law of the Land" refers to Magna Carta and the
principles enshrined therein, not parliamentary made law, not court made law
that is repugnant to Magna Carta, but God's laws, which are the basis of the law
of the land: - this is what our rulers are bound to deliver under our heritage
of law and the Coronation Oath to which they are all absolutely bound legally
and by oath of office.

The additional fundamental principles established by Magna Carta
include:

Common Law, law that is common to all, common to the King
and the People.

The right of the governed - to agree with the rules under
which they are governed.

The right of the governed - to draft a fresh set of rules
under which they agree to be governed.

The right of the governed - to collectively impose rules on
the ruler.

The right to place limits on government.

The right to the delivery of limited government.

History tells us that having established a fundamental principle
does not guarantee that it will be adhered to by government. This fact is made
very clear by the need to re-impose Magna Carta on a long list of rulers, no
less that 37 times over 400 years.

LESSONS OF HISTORY

The lesson here is that liberty and justice are not
automatically delivered. The reverse is the case, whereby the people in power
continually increase their control over the population; and in doing so whittle
away at the Peoples' fundamental rights.

The whittling continues until the people say enough is enough
and move to re-establish their fundamental rights. Australia has reached that
point in time, where we need to re-establish the fundamental limits and the
checks and balances required for the delivery of good government.

And so the right to self-government and Common Law was enshrined
forever by the precedents set and accepted as a result of Magna Carta. This is
our heritage.

These rights and the principles on which they are based are
clearly spelt out in the American Declaration of Independence in the following
words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new government."

In the lead-up to federation in 1901 the principles set out
above generally guided activities, even though they were not clearly defined. In
the final draft these principles were not followed. A brief examination of the
facts surrounding the preparation of the Commonwealth Constitution exposes many
problems, not the least of which was vested interests.

FEDERATION

The idea of Federation, where the six independent self-governing
colonies joined together under a commonwealth umbrella, originally came from
Britain in around 1850, and was not taken seriously until thirty years later.
Federation was not an Australian people-driven idea, but general agreement with
the principles and the reasons for federation existed at the time. This was not
the case for the "constitution" as drafted.

The concept was, that the then colonies entered into a power
sharing arrangement by establishing a central government and transferring some
of their existing powers to a new central, "federal" government to
administer. It is important to remember that all the powers of the various
states were limited by the Laws of England or in other words the British
constitution, in other words Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. The Laws of England
likewise limited all powers transferred to the new federal system.

This arrangement / contract -cum - Constitution is as a result,
a contract between the six colonial governments (not the People), a contract
where the six colonial governments agreed to remain independent self-governing
states within the proposed new federation, but to hand over some of their
existing powers to the new central body. No new powers were created.

The 1890s convention that was given the job of drafting the
contract cum Constitution consisted of 57 lawyers, politicians, big business men
and eight journalists, a total of 65 out of the 66 people responsible for
drafting the original contract. (The vested interests).

Britain required that the colonies held referenda in order to
obtain the approval of the People, the referendums failed to get approval with
52% of the few allowed to vote rejecting the document.

The draft document, which in fact took the form of a draft Bill
prepared for the consideration by the British Imperial Parliament, on its
arrival in Britain,
was subjected to major changes, and only then it was
passed by the British Parliament and from there imposed on the people of
Australia.

The document that eventuated after the British authorities
altered the draft delivered to them, was not returned to Australia for the
People's approval either before or after it became a British Act.

The Australian people never approved the document called the
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.

The only time the people generally got involved in the 1890s
debate was when interest was stirred up by the church. This saw pressure brought
to bear on the drafting of the contract, pressure to include God in the draft
and to not give the new central parliament any power over religion.

It is important to note that the draft document sent to Britain
for approval did not contain the required references to God. The reference to
God in the preamble of the Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia was
put there by Britain. What is now claimed as our Constitution, the isolated
section 9 of this Act contains no reference whatsoever to the Almighty, God.

Fortunately the Commonwealth Constitution is not only section 9
of this act. The whole Act makes up the constitution and in addition, the
essential Letters Patent of Queen Victoria of 1900 setting out the duties of the
Governor-General along with other events and documentation that relate to
constituting of Australia. Section 9 was separated by the word Constitution
because it contained provision for it to be amended by other than the British
Parliament.

The fact that Australia was constituted by a British Act of
Parliament and received the assent of the Monarch makes it subject to the Laws
of England, the British Constitution which includes Magna Carta.

The powers-that-be prior to federation, recognised that it was
advisable to seek the "people's" approval of this contract before it
went to Britain for final approval. Referenda were held, but the population's
approval was not sought or obtained.

At this time in our history, the moneyed elite had a right to
vote --- not many other people did. In fact the landed gentry had as many as six
votes each under the system that operated at the time. Records show that less
than 12% of the population voted and more than half of those who did vote,
rejected the contract but it went ahead regardless.

HOW AND WHEN TO FOOL THE PEOPLE

It appears that there was a rush to have this contract approved
and in place ready for the turn of the century. Hindsight would indicate that
the best time to fool the people would be at the turn of the century when the
People's minds can be concentrated on other things such as celebration --- and into
believing that there is some defining urgency, when there is not.

The fact that we too are now at the end of a century, being
rushed blindly into constitutional change without proper time to debate and
properly consider what we are being forced into, must ring some very loud
warning bells, particularly so when we add in celebrating the Olympics and the
end of the Millennium as major distractions --- far, far from the best time for
the people to make important decisions, decisions that will have long term
repercussions on just about every aspect of their lives.

At the time immediately before federation, in the late 1890s,
there were no proposals to change anything of substance; it was simply a
transfer of some of the existing state powers to the proposed new central
government. The peoples' rights were never debated, were not part of the
contract and there was no intention at any time to make them part of the
contract.

The peoples' rights were well entrenched in the Laws of England,
which limited the power of all state governments, this power was transferred to
the proposed central government with all limits intact. No need to because this
was a contract that at all times was subject to the Laws of England.

After all, it was a simple matter, - where the six state
government's planned to contract-out some of their existing powers. The states
were at the time British Colonies, requiring British approval for any such
contract / Constitution. Approval came in the form of a British Act of
Parliament and the Monarch's Assent.

The Commonwealth Constitution was never a Peoples' constitution;
the People did not draft it. The People did not approve it. The People have no
built in right to propose an amendment to it - only the politicians have this
right, this one fact alone totally cancels any claim that it is the Australian
Peoples' Constitution.

MONUMENTAL CHANGE

Eighteen years after federation, on 28 June 1919, Australia,
then a British Dominion signed The Peace Treaty of Versailles as an independent
nation. Prior to this event Britain always signed for Australia.

On 10 September 1919 Prime Minister Hughes addressed the Federal
Parliament proclaiming that "--- Australia has now entered into a family of
nations on a footing of equality. Australia has been born in a blood sacrifice
---" - referring to Australia's losses in the First World War.

On 10 January 1920 Australia signed on as a founding member of
the League of Nations in its new capacity as an independent Nation, equal
politically and in sovereignty with Great Britain and the twenty-eight other
independent nations joining as foundation members. This is Australia's
Independence Day.

Signing on as a member of the League of Nations involved the
signatories in undertaking not to impose their laws on other member nations.
Heavy penalties were agreed to for any member nation doing so.

Britain and Australia were fully aware of these conditions and
agreed to them. These conditions became International Law.

The repercussions from these events meant that the Commonwealth
of Australia Constitution was no longer enforceable in Australia, because it was
part of an Act of the British Parliament. In addition this
"constitution" had not received the approval of the Australian people.
All this left the Federal Parliament without proper legal authority to act in
the government of Australia.

These events not only left the Federal Parliament, the High
Court and the Federal Government generally without proper legal authority. It
left them with only one proper legal course open to them, which was to notify
the Australian people of these momentous events; and to put in place procedures,
to have the people approve a fresh Constitution. This was never done, and
unfortunately the Federal Parliament, the High Court and government departments
continued on without proper authority - and contrary to law.

The Australian population was never made fully aware of
complications flowing from the events of the time, nor have they been made aware
since, not by government, or by the monarch.

There is only one direction Australia can take, even at this
late stage and that is to have a fresh Constitution approved by the People via a
referendum.

Such a fresh Constitution must build on the substantial
foundation of fundamental principles of freedom provided by our rich heritage
and it must also be the will of the People the beneficiaries to this heritage.

A compact of the People, drafted by the People then approved by
a majority of the Australian People at a referendum.

This process should not be rushed. Every Australian should have
ample time, with all the facts before them, before they are asked to vote on a
fresh Constitution.

If this is not the case, then the very least that the people
should accept, is that any constitution on which they are asked to vote must
include the Peoples' (as opposed to the politicians) right to propose amendments
to the Constitution, and only then should a fresh constitution go to referendum
for the Peoples' approval. This provision would give the People the opportunity
to put right any built in wrong.

THE PEOPLES' RIGHTS.

Under the inherited English system of government the fundamental
rights of the People are protected by placing limits on government.

A constitution is a set of rules designed specifically to limit
and control government, it is not just a document that only sets in place the
framework of government as we are being led to believe it is.

The so-called Commonwealth Constitution while in operation as
part of an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain was bound by the Laws of
England, in other words bound by the British Constitution, Magna Carta Habeas
Corpus etc. The Laws of England place specific limits on government and in so
doing guarantee the Peoples' fundamental rights.

When in 1920, British Law ceased to have legal effect on, or
bind the Federal Government. Government, it assumed it was no longer bound by
the Laws of England, with the result that, the People's rights were incorrectly
seen by government as no longer guaranteed at a federal level.

This may be the government's preferred position, but it is not
sustainable because of the fact that Captain Cook and the first settlers who
followed brought the Laws of England with them. Laws that were and remain today
the property of the people not the property of government. Remember that Magna
Carta stated that,- a man's property can not be removed except by the law of the
land.

We are talking about the Law that the People had devised and
imposed on the rulers of England, the Peoples' law, the Peoples' property, not
the property of government.

Australian government, whether it is State or Federal has no
mandate or legal right whatsoever to take away the Peoples' legal property. The
Laws of England became the Laws of Australia by virtue of the fact that they are
the property of the Australian people.

Both State and Federal governments remain bound by the Laws of
England, because these laws are the property of the Australian people and as
such are the Laws of Australia. Laws that only the People themselves can cancel.
No court, no parliament, not even the Queen can cancel the Peoples' Laws.

State governments remain bound by the Laws of England. But if we
accept the position that all Australian governments have taken, we find the
following totally unacceptable position exists, where up until 1986 and the
Australia Act(s)*, the Government view is that the Peoples' rights remained
protected via state obligations under the Laws of England, until 1986, when
they, the politicians arranged between themselves to cancel all rights and the
delivery of justice.

Under the system of limited government inherited from England,
state governments were prevented by law from passing legislation that was
repugnant to the Laws of England. This very important limit on state governments
was cancelled with the enactment of the Australia Act(s) 1986.

The result, according to current government thinking and action,
is that the Australian People are left with no legal claim to, or guarantee of,
fundamental rights or the delivery of justice.

This is not to say that the laws that existed in Australia at
the time of passing the Australia Act were cancelled. What took place was, the
politicians granted unto themselves a situation where they acquired totally
unlimited power to amend existing laws or make new laws where either or both
deny the fundamental rights of the People. In other words it gave politicians
absolute power over the lives of the Australian People.

Even if what is claimed to be the Commonwealth Constitution
remained legally in force it would be time for a fresh Constitution, because of
the momentous chances that have taken place and most importantly because the
Australian people have had their inalienable rights cancelled by totally
repugnant law, leaving them at the mercy of totally unlimited government -
politicians - courts and bureaucracy at all levels.

It should be noted that the High Court has apparently assumed
the role of, "giver of rights", assumed the position of God. Since
1986 the High Court has read into the "Constitution" the right to free
speech, when it is clear that no such right is written there. Furthermore there
was never any intention or need to write it there.

The High Court has in the past reversed decisions when it has
been politically expedient to do so, which means, that what it gives it can take
away, when it suits. The High Court is a body made up of political appointments
and as things stand, a body without proper legal authority for its existence. A
body of people that has demonstrated the fact that they hold views contrary to
the Australian peoples' bet interests.

At the end of the day the freedom and prosperity of the
Australian People will depend on two things:- the quality of the rules that
limit government and the Peoples' ability to enforce the rules.

The set of rules we rely on today have neither of these two
basic requirements. Making a fresh constitution absolutely essential.

WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE

The Alternative Three proposal for a fresh set of rules
encapsulating the fundamental principles and the checks and balances provided by
what now are the Laws of the People of Australia, Magna Carta, etc.

The Alternative Three - Fresh Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution - is the Great Charter of Australia, Australia's Magna Carta.

On November 6, mark both your ballot Papers with an A3 or write
Alternative Three across both papers. Do not answer any of the referendum
questions.

Neither a yes or a no vote is in your best interests or the best
interests of present or future Australia. Get your copy of the Alternative Three
draft Constitution; get to understand what the possibilities really are and
where your future freedom will be secure.

When you cast your vote for Alternative Three you will be voting
on a fresh Constitution, this vote is not subject to the laws that apply to a
referendum to amend the existing "Constitution". Under existing Law
your Alternative Three vote must be also be counted in the republican
referendum, where it falls into the same basket as a no vote.

Section 128 par 5, of the Constitution is clear, ----a majority
of ALL the electors voting -is required to change the Constitution-- no mention
of only formal votes, it clearly states ALL votes.

The Constitution prevents government from making laws that
disenfranchise electors by providing for all votes to be counted. It is clear
the that for a vote to be counted as a yes it must be clearly a YES vote , all
other votes cast on the day must fall into the NO basket simply because they are
not YES, and thereby the elector refuses to approve any change.

The Act that is used to control referendums.- the Referendum
(Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, is contrary to the Constitution and should not
stand if challenged in the High Court, but as do all Australian Laws,
constitutional or otherwise, they stand until a citizen challenges them in the
High Court. This unbelievable and unjust situation exists because
Governor-Generals have not carried out their duty since 1920, their duty is to
not grant assent to legislation that is repugnant to the Law of England, - Magna
Carta, Habeas Corpus etc. but they have repeatedly done so.

If the Referendums (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 is relied on,
it clearly defines what constitutes an informal vote 1(a) Ballot paper not
initialled on the back by issuing officer

(b) no vote marked on ballot paper or electors choice is not
clear. (A3 is a clear choice).

( c) has more than one choice marked on the ballot paper.

(d) the
name of a person.

Claims that an Alternative Three vote will be declared informal
are misleading as the law states otherwise, such a situation would be
unconstitutional and against the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act.1984.
There is no other law. We realise that desperate men turn to desperate measures,
if this the case then the chance of a honest referendum just does not exist.
Particularly when one considers that dishonest people can vote as many times as
the like simply by going to as many polling booths as they choose and voting.

The biggest obstacle to bringing about positive change to
Australia's disastrous constitutional circumstances is the peoples' dominant
belief that they need government permission, when they don't, and once more they
will never get it. We need to act within our long established fundamental, God
given right, to implement new government as the need has certainly been
demonstrated.

The Australian people, that is, you and me, have been played for fools,
and that so far the activity has been extremely successful and that we have
been well and truly fooled?

We had all our legal claims to liberty and justice removed by Act of
parliament in 1986.

Since 1986 the High Court has set itself up as God and that it now
determines what rights people have and what justice they will get?

Australia is being prepared for entry into what is called the New World
Order (NWO) system that will take control of our rights and what justice is
delivered? The next step for us, in this massive power grab, will be
regional government under the name of APEC already lying in ambush?

Under a regional government system every person of the region will have
one equal vote and that Australia's 19 million people will be outvoted by
Indonesia's 210 million, not to mention Japan and China's numbers? Then,
longer term, consider the odds in a One World Government system.

The reason our industry has been wound down and given away, is all part of
the plan? For the NWO to get control, the independence / self-sufficiency of
all nations must be eliminated. This is being accomplished by allowing a
nation with no natural resources including energy, such as Japan, to build a
massive manufacturing capability, while Nations such as Australia must have
no manufacturing capability. The result will be totally dependent countries
such as Japan and now Australia, where control over all nations can be
exercised by outsiders running the NWO, simply by cutting off Japan's energy
and raw materials, or in Australia's case, cutting off the supply of
manufactured goods and worse the people's income, by cutting tourism.

This whole operation can be manipulated into place through the control of
money? All that is required is to allow Japan access to funds at say 1% and
force Australia to pay 10%. In the early 1990s it was, Japan 2% Australia
20% and our manufacturing capability was simply hosed out.

The November referendum is another part of the process of preparing
Australia's legal position for entry into the regional government phase of
the planned New World Order.

If you continue to sit on your hands and do nothing, you will soon be
living in a world of one central, big brother-style government, one religion
with one standard of living which will be abject poverty under total
oppression and with no means of change or even improvement?

Australia is placed in the unique position where it can head off what the
NWO has in store for us? We can do so by installing a true Peoples'
Constitution and we can make this happen as early as the November 1999
referendum, if we choose to? What will you choose, hand sitting or freedom?

Magna Carta first established the right of the people to draft a
"constitution" and to serve it on the government of the day? Since
this precedent, government permission to do so has not been required.

If you don't make a stand now, you may well lose all opportunity to do so
at any future time? It will certainly be too late once the NWO trap has
closed so far that it finally snaps shut.

The People's Constitution is ready, available for your inspection and
approval, from Alternative Three at $5 a copy posted. A full Constitutional
Kit is also available for $20 posted

Freedom to be able to call your home your castle to the
exclusion of all others.

Personal freedom, - economic freedom.

The freedom to do as a responsible freeman would
providing that it not interfere with the freedom of another.

Freedom to be productive and to retain the reward for
production.

Freedom to be able to store your rewards in the country's
exchange mechanism in absolute confidence that they will retain their value.

Government has one purpose and that is to protect these
freedoms. At least this was always the intention. The outcome unfortunately,
demoralisingly and destructively is quite the opposite.

Do you know why Australia is not a tax haven and many
countries are?

The reason we are not is that Australian government does not
want us to be free.

A tax haven is simply a country that has no income tax, or
next to none. A tax haven usually is not interested in your personal activities,
a place where privacy is a right.

Those of us that have thought about it realise that taxes on
production such as income tax, are not necessary. In fact they are destructive.
We also realise that the same amount of tax can be collected in a number of ways
other than taxes on production.

Australia could collect double the tax it collects with a
simple 'transaction tax' of less than one percent,* thereby making it totally
unnecessary to have any other form of taxation, with the exception of a tax on
all assets leaving** Australia: - in other words a tax haven designed for
Australians and to protect Australians from international pirates. A tax haven
is no more than a country that has no income taxes. There is no reason why
Australia should not be a tax haven.

All that is required is the will, then Australia could be a
tax haven within a few weeks. As the politicians do not have the will, it is
then up to us, the people, to exercise our will and make Australia a tax haven.

People are coming to realise that the elite in Australia pays
virtually no tax as they make use of overseas tax havens. Australia must have a
system where all pay their share and a transaction tax coupled with an export
tax will accomplish this objective.

Let us reduce Australia down to the size of your back yard,
where you run a few chooks and grow all your vegetables. Would you allow a
freeloader to whom you gave shelter, to gather up most of the eggs and harvest
most of the vegetables and take them with him - or would you invite in a foreign
national to do the same, leaving you and your family to go short, in fact force
them to steal from another backyard to survive? No you would not, but this is
what is happening in Australia and all we can see to do, is sit around and
whinge about what the politicians are doing, when all the time we have the
remedy at our fingertips. You see, we the people have a universally recognised
right to set the rules that govern the politicians; but we will have to make the
effort at the next referendum to introduce a fresh set of rules.

All that is required to make yourself free and Australia a
tax haven can be found in the Alternative Three fresh Constitution. All that is
required to make it happen is the will of the people at the next referendum. Get
your copy; find out just how simple the solution really is. Then simply write
Alternative Three across both your referendum papers and refuse to be bluffed
into answering either of the elite's referendum questions. Freedom and
prosperity are at your fingertips, they can be yours and your children's by
voting Alternative Three.

* People wishing to know more about the concept of a
transaction tax, consult us for "debit tax" information.

** Both the transaction tax and export tax are dealt with in
the Alternative Three Draft Constitution.

Lima Declaration and plan of Action
on
Industrial Development and Co-operation

It is an international trade agreement similar to G.A.T.T.
(General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs), Australia is a signatory to The Lima
Declaration as it is to many GATT agreements.

Australia signed The Lima Agreement with the total support of
all major political parties.

It should be clearly understood that the 'Lima Declaration'
is one of many hundreds of international agreements and treaties signed by
Australia, usually by one man The Minister for Foreign Affairs or his nominee,
who signs on behalf of all Australians.

It should also be clearly understood that 99.9% of
Australians do not know what such agreements and treaties are about, nor how
they effect their lives, and they are not told -- if they were, there would be
instant riot.

This paper deals very briefly with just one of the blanket of
agreements and treaties now in existence. The Lima Declaration of 1975.

International treaties in the main are the handywork of the
United Nations and have been used by Australian Governments to undermine
Australian Sovereignty. The High Court decision on the Franklin Dam issue in
Tasmania is a case in point. Used to put in place processes the impact of which
the Australian people are completely unaware, and if they were aware, would be
totally opposed to, processes that "get-around" "The Australian
Commonwealth Constitution." In other words, treason. And treason is being
committed in the name of International Treaty, or the other names given to them,
such as conventions, or in this case declaration, The Lima Declaration.

You may say treason is a strong word, but after reading this
brief you will say it is not strong enough, without doubt sufficient reason to
impeach the Australian Government and opposition on charges of treason..

A copy of The Lima Declaration may be obtained from the
United Nations in your Capital City, or the department of Foreign Affairs in
Canberra, by phoning the treaties support unit on (06) 261 3590. While you are
on the phone ask them how many treaties, declarations, conventions, etc exist.
Ask for copies. Ask for the complete set including with The International Treaty
on Civil & Political Rights. (The Bill of No Rights).

How can Governments give effect to The Lima Declaration ?

Simply, The Lima Declaration is an agreement to wind down
Australian manufacturing by around 30% and to import that amount from other
preferred Countries together with as much primary produce as we can consume.
Such as fruit, meat etc. The 30% was a target that has now blown out, current
estimates are that 90% of our production capacity has gone, and our jobs with
it.

There is no mention in the agreement about what will happen
to the Australians who lose their jobs, their factories or their farms, it
appears they are expendable.

How can Government wind down Business Activity?

Simply by making an un-level playing field. Increase taxes,
interest rates, the cost of employing people (without the worker gaining any
benefit) Environmental planning controls all these things in combination either
destroy or increase our ability to produce.

A good example would be:....

If you wished to manufacture widgets in Western Sydney, you
may require, say, 5 acres of industrial land at around 2 million dollars, on
which you will pay 25 thousand dollars a year rates, and 25 thousand dollars
land tax, it will cost some hundreds of thousands in 'contributions' to Council
coffers, and environmental studies, all of which you may borrow at 15-20%
interest then, if you are lucky you will be up and manufacturing in maybe 2 to 5
years. Then the unions will step in and cause loss of production, the Government
will make you subject to time consuming unnecessary costs, paperwork, insurance
and payroll tax and force you to collect sales tax (GST) on your product, and
threaten you with heavy penalties including jail sentences for late or
non-compliance.

or

You can simply set up business offshore and export your ideas
back to Australia. Our offshore neighbour, also a party to The Lima Declaration
will give you the land, assist you in every way and not tax you for the first
five years, their interest rates may range from nil to 4%, not to mention the
Australian Governments incentives available to importers from preferred
countries, and so the playing field is drastically tilted to get the result
required by a combination of Government and financial activities.

How does The Lima Declaration effect me?

* Simply 50% of the productive Australian workforce becomes
unemployed.

* Taxes on the remainder in employment increases, to pay
for the unemployed

* With new shortage of income you are forced to buy cheaper
-- imports, or go without thereby aggravating the spiral of well planned
economic transfer (oppression)

Government
(unproductive sections) will increase their numbers to cover up the real
unemployed statistics or/and change the definition of unemployed; if you work 10
hours a month you will be considered employed. We then have more people
in Government at all levels with little to do, other than think up more ways of
controlling those who are left to produce what little we don't import, employed
thinking up new revenue raising schemes, and raising penalties to ensure their
salaries. And last but not least, the obscure reason behind The Lima
Declaration, Australia becomes a dependent nation, dependent on other nations
for it's shoes, it's machinery, it's food, it's survival.

There is no doubt, that within the grand plan of
international control there is no room for self-sufficient nations. Any nation
that has all the minerals it needs and can grow all the food and fibre it
needs cannot be totally controlled by any international body such as the
United Nations the International Monetary Fund or The World Bank.

An independent nation (independent in it's production of
all the things it needs) cannot be bought to heel by sanctions, such as in
South Africa was and Iraq is at the present.

The international control cannot starve the infants of an
independent nation, nor deny them medication, as is the case in Iraq.

If Australia cannot make it's own shoes, clothes, and
machinery, then others will control us. That is the real purpose of The Lima
Declaration, and that is why those who support the Lima Declaration, including
those in influential positions are all traitors. Joe Bryant. Jan 1992

Briefly, How the Treachery in Lima Occurred

The second general conference of the United Nations
Industrial Development Organisation (U.N.I.D.O) met in Lima, Peru from March
12-26, 1975,. The outcome of that meeting was The Lima Declaration, a blue
print for the transfer of technology, tools and jobs to 3rd world or
developing nations, leaving the "Developed" nations such as
Australia short of technology, tools and jobs.

This is now a reality with around 90% of our productive
jobs gone and insufficient income from the remaining 10%, to fund the loss of
jobs that alone the importing of what we once made right here in Australia
with Australian hands, the result yet another 3rd world country in the making.

All different names for the same plan of total control of
the world through the money system - control by sick minds, treasonous
politicians and bumbling academics and bureaucrats.

The following are some of the recommendations of The Lima
Declaration.

Resolution 5........Recognising the urgent need to
bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on
equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been
expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a
New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure
of economic relations.

Comment....In 1975 Australia. (or at least one Australian)
agreed to destroy our economy so that it fitted into a "New Economic
Order"

Resolution 27 -------- Developed Countries such as
Australia should expand it's imports from developing countries.

Resolution 28 ------ Requires that developing countries
increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier
United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.

Resolution 59 ------The developed countries should
adopt the following measures.

(a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and
non-tariff barriers, and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the
special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a
view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world
trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the
"standstill" on imports from developing countries and recognition
of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the
event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the
"standstill".

(b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure
increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including
processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed
countries:

(c) Facilitate development of new and strengthen existing
policies, taking into account their economic structure and economic, social
and security objectives, which would encourage their industries which are
less competitive internationally to move progressively into more viable
lines of production or into other sectors of the economy, thus leading to
structural adjustments within the developed countries, and redeployment of
the productive capacities of such industries to developing countries and
promotion of a higher degree of utilization of natural resources and people
in the latter

(d) Consideration by the developed countries of their
policies with respect to processed and semi-processed forms of raw
materials, taking full account of the interests of the developing countries
in increasing their capacities and industrial potentials for processing raw
materials which they export;

(e) Increased financial contributions to international
organizations and to government or credit institutions in the developing
countries in order to facilitate the promotion or financing of industrial
development. Such contributions must be completely free of any kind of
political conditions and should involve no economic conditions other than
those normally imposed on borrowers;

For further detail get your own copy of The Lima Declaration

Note.... It would seem that basic economic considerations are
ignored to lock the world into a New Economic Order, by which complete control
of the world and it's people is planned, through the total control of their
economy - their means of existence.

The basic economy I refer to is "people". People
create the need, the need is then supplied by people's activity.

All that is required for economic growth is for people to
supply their own market, the proposed New Economic Order, is not about
developing 3rd world countries economies for the benefit of their people , it's
about developing for the establishment's benefit, our would be masters. The
would be masters of The New World Order.

It is an absolute nonsense to say a country needs to export
to survive and prosper. Of course one must export an equal amount to that which
it imports to balance trade, but the less it imports the less it needs to export
to effect the offset.

What is required is a locally owned and controlled credit
system, the essential ingredient in remaining independent of International
finance the exact opposite to the plans of The New World masters

Every country should work toward import replacement
exactly the opposite to the strategy set out in The Lima Declaration and exactly
the opposite to the current policy of export - export - export. Currently
Australia exports below the cost of production, therefore the more we export the
faster we go broke. Some years of this policy has seen our foreign debt go to
$630billion in 1999. By November 2000 expect it to be $750 billion and the IMF to
walk in and demand drastic cuts in pensions a 25% GST.

If the fundamentals on which The Lima Declaration is
purported to be built were half-correct, our world would have to carry out
export/import trade with another world in export-to-survive. This is quite
obviously nonsense. The whole world will continue to fall for this treachery
while ever the man in the street remains as a mushroom, under the spell of
bankers trickery and that of their stooges who fill both elected, and public
service positions.

Footnote.

... The New Economic Order is mentioned no
less than 21 times in The Lima Agreement, that is what The Lima Agreement is
all about, locking the new developing countries into "their"
economic trap and "their" plans for total world economic
control, at the same time reducing developed countries to third world status,
clamping the shackles of International debt on every human being, bringing
about total world slavery, and the legally enforceable shackles of debt,
chained to the slave master, money power.

Every Australian is immediately required to make a decision
between debt controlled slavery in perpetuity- or the age of prosperity. Both
are eminently possible, one we will have! Which one? Now rely on your gut
feeling, ignore the controlled media propaganda - it's owned by your would-be
masters, but decide now between perpetual slavery or the age of prosperity.